TargetTalk

I have heard that one proposal to deal with the deteriorating target turning system at Camp Perry is to replace it with an electronic target system. Although this is an exciting prospect, it raises some questions that I would like to pose to my fellow bullseye shooters:

1) How would you feel about an increase in the match fees at the National Matches to help cover the cost of a new target system? I know it's already an expensive match and that some shooters don't attend for that reason, but on the other hand electronic targets could improve the Perry experience.

2) I'm not familiar with the design of the various electronic target systems but I'm sure that they would have some vulnerability to stray shots and that they would be expensive to repair once damaged. What would you think about having the marksmen and sharpshooters shoot on the old mechanical targets while the experts, masters and high masters, who should be better able to keep their shots on the target, use the new system? Would this be unfair to the lower classifications?

3) The monitors used to display the shot results to each shooter probably aren't very water resistant. How would you feel about having canopies set up over the firing line to keep the electronics dry? Although covered firing points are common at bullseye matches, I don't think they've every been used for the pistol phase of the National Matches.

4) Automatic electronic scoring could speed up the matches quite a bit. How would you feel about the pistol matches being condensed from six days to four or three?

One big problem with electronic targets at Perry (or any other US Bullseye match) is the need to move from 50 yds to 25 yds. It is not very easy to move the targets, and as you mentioned, with the displays, you would otherwise need to move the covered firing points and displays. It could be done, but would be a challenge. A process to deal with cross-fires would also have to be worked out.

Covered line would have to be used.
For the past 10 years smallbore uses the canopy. They have been setting them up for pistol as a staging area.

I personally would like to see electronic targets used.
Would make a short day, do not have any ideas as to what other program they could run.

As to cost I could see local clubs running running some extra matches, with the fees going for the target systems. Maybe $10.00 per shooter.
I understand the CMP is willing to share in the cost.

First crossfires are no problem, if you shot on the air gun range it is the same. A microphone at each point picks up the shots, if no shot is recorded it is a miss.

As to the 25 to 50. A simple rail system can be used to move the targets in and out.

I don't object to an electronic system in theory but feel that the scope and setting of Camp Perry will make it impractical. Does anyone know of an electronic system that is durable enough to use with large calibers like a 45?
Also when you talk about a moving rail to adjust the firing line from 50 down to 25 yards, remember Camp Perry is not a fixed pistol range. It has to be put up and taken down every year for one weeks shooting. I fear that the maintenance and breakage would soon triple or quadruple the initial estimated cost of the system. I don't think electronic systems are designed for matches like Camp Perry, and it would end up like the DIA (Denver International Airport) computerized automated Baggage System, an expensive albatross that would be a total waste because it never worked correctly.

Even master class shooters occasionally have early or late shots that will hit the target frame. I don't think limiting your electronic range shooters to the higher classifications is going to save you much wear and tear.

I have shot on electronic targets at 300 meters, with a 308 Win. Rifle.
Never broke one. Here is a link to a club in the US that has 300 meter HP rifle matches.
http://minnesotarifleshooting.blogspot. ... ucket.html

In europe there are many makers of international targets for all calibers and courses of fire.

It is best not to post replies if you are just guessing.

Once you have fired on one you do not want to go bck to a conventional type of match. Many plus's few negatives.

Ask Brian Zinns and John Zurek their opinion.

Trooperjake wrote:I have shot on electronic targets at 300 meters, with a 308 Win. Rifle.
Never broke one. Here is a link to a club in the US that has 300 meter HP rifle matches.
http://minnesotarifleshooting.blogspot. ... ucket.html

In europe there are many makers of international targets for all calibers and courses of fire.

It is best not to post replies if you are just guessing.

Once you have fired on one you do not want to go bck to a conventional type of match. Many plus's few negatives.

Ask Brian Zinns and John Zurek their opinion.

The original poster was asking for opinions. You got mine along with a series of questions that need to be answered by some technical experts. The only one you answered was the caliber question.

I have shot in Europe. Most of the ranges are either indoors or have permanent cover on both the firing line and on the targets. None of them were portable.
Wind is a huge issue at Camp Perry. Not much of an issue in Europe.



Did you shoot timed or rapid rife with a 308? and did the targets turn? The link you posted doesn't indicate whether or not the targets turn. Getting electronic targets to turn indoors is one thing. Getting them to turn reliably outdoors in a 25 mile an hour wind without blowing out of the frames is another.

How many electronic systems are in continuous operation outdoors and are designed to be taken down and set up again in the space of a few days? If you know of any, that are both outdoors, and portable, please link to the ranges.
How can a competition be fair if only some of the shooters get to shoot on the electronic targets?
I think these are all legitimate questions. I have shot electronic targets also, but none of them turned.
John Zurek and Brian Zins are fine shooters but having talked to them both, I know that neither is a mechanical or an electrical engineer, and no disrespect to either shooter, (but to use an analogy of the difference between a shooter and a systems engineer who designs target systems) I don't ask a truck driver, how to build and maintain a diesel engine.
I think that electronic targets are probably ideal for a venue that has permanent cover, and stationary equipment that also has a customer base where they can use the equipment for many different disciplines and matches on a year round basis. None of these conditions apply at Perry which is a pistol range for one week a year sometimes under extreme environmental conditions.

I would have to both see a portable system outdoors, in operation, and look at the dollar figures, and maintenance budget before I would assume that it was a good idea for a place like Perry. My guess is that even a doubling of entry fees for the next twenty years would be inadequate to cover the cost of even a 100 firing point electronic system, but I could do the math for you if you would like.

I have seen quite a few engineering disasters that worked fine on paper, but failed to work in practice. I have an extensive background in cost estimating and procurement of electronic equipment and construction projects.

I am sure the technical part can be worked out.
I trust in the engineers.
When I said to speak to Zurek and Zinns, I was not asking them to invent anything. I know they are nt engineers.
I meant which system would they like to compete with.
since the CMP was willing to share in the expense I figured they would want a more permanent installation. With only the electronic units themselves taken down.
You are not answering my question, since you shot on electronic targets, which way would you prefer, as it is now or with electronic targets.
After all Perry is a National Championship, where the best equipment should be used. Perry just put in new Pits, maybe pistol should also have good equipment.
Perry is used for many months of the year, not just the nationals.
After all we are Americans, we can solve any thing, if we put our minds to it.
It may take years to figure out, but it can be done.
Saying I never shot on turning electronic targets does not mean it cannot be done.
Don't you like shooting in the air gun range?

to your points.

1. I think the fees are pretty high already although the other costs of shooting for the week are more. I have heard that the air gun ranges cost $1M. Don't know the real number but I think you would have to significantly increase the fees to build and maintain the systems for 3-4 lines of 100. Small increase ok (20-25) bigger than that and you begin to push the cost of the 2700 close to $300

2. everybody needs to shoot on the same systems. It's a classification not a lower class.

3. canopies would let us proudly boast of the old days when real men shot out in the sun and rain. I'm all for it.

4. I like the 1 gun a day format. You can control how long you want to be there. Shoot the revolver or not, shoot the prelim or not, shoot the EIC or not.

I never shot on electronic targets. Would they have to turn? Can't they just be turned on and off the appropriate time to record the bullet's impact or jsut record the early and late shots?

The electronic targets don't turn. ISSF is using SHOOT/NO SHOOT lights.

Not having a dog in this fight, my inclination would be to either fix the turning target apparatus, or construct some sort of a towable target trailer. If I were taking that approach, I'd get a consortium of the NRA, USAS, and quite possibly ISSF itself. Have one set of targets, ship them around the world as required. Those things are expensive. Nice, but expensive.

Isabel1130 wrote:I don't object to an electronic system in theory but feel that the scope and setting of Camp Perry will make it impractical. Does anyone know of an electronic system that is durable enough to use with large calibers like a 45?

Our electronic system can deal with rifle bullet hits of at least 3000 Joule (at 100 metres) without problems, and has done so regularly. Hundreds of frame hits already, many FMJ, less SP. It is recommendable that the armoured steel protection frame (we use Hardox 400) be not too tightly jointed to the electronic apparatus.
The real problem are lead sprays from target to target. Hence the necessity of wooden divider boards set up between the frames, as we found out the hard way. ;-)

The frames + targets are movable and have been moved, although it's a bit of weight and hence of effort. Golf carts would be helpful.

Alexander

Thanks for all the responses.

It sounds like durability isn't as big of a problem as I thought it might be, but expense and portability are still major obstacles.

I wonder, though... would an electronic target system suitable for bullseye competition also be adaptable to smallbore rifle matches? Splitting the cost between two phases of the National Matches might make it more affordable.

Bringing in electronic targets will make the sport more marketable alongside the other shooting sports. I'm all for it.

How is electronic targets more marketable? Is NBC or ESPN going to broadcast matches because they use these targets? Doubt it. Face it, as long as the media regards shooting and guns as violent and criminal and yes redneck behavior you'll never be mainstream or marketable. Have you seen the escalating prices on bullets, primers, brass, ,22lr ammo..etc? Its becoming a sport of the privaleged few. All these systems do is put a burden on the regular shooter who pays for mostly everything. Frankly, they don't need to speed more. I doubt the Brian Zins, Doug Keoing and everyone else on the sponsored professional, army and olympic teams worry about equipment, ammo and match fees. Lets leave things as they are.

THE media. Of course. All evil - starting with president Obama,. for you - is due to THE media. What else.

Like THE jews. And THE free masons. And THE red-haired.

Worst of all, all THE Americans. LOL.

We do not need posts like alexander posted.
It is filled with hatred.
This person should be banned from posting.

Trooperjake, back under your stone please.
You can whine from there over THE evil evil media.

I am talking about you, not the media.

Trooperjake, I think Alexander was being sarcastic. which is sometimes difficult to detect in print.
I have been given no authority to ban a poster nor do I want to or delete their posts unless they cross a line into unacceptable language or libel.
Alexander, watch it, you are getting close. Hopefully after November some of the political acrimony will be settled.


Back to the subject of electronic targets at Perry.
My guess is 5 million dollars for a three hundred point system with electronic targets that will actually work in the conditions at Perry. Based on my calculations, with a 50 dollar increase in entry fees for roughly 850 pistol competitors, the NRA should be able to pay for it in about 117 years. Anyone want to form a betting pool on either the cost or the feasibility of electronic targets for pistol at Perry?